Despite all the great strides Santa Barbara has made in conserving water during the worst drought on state record, city water officials are still projecting a water shortfall for the summer of 2017.

From August to October of next year, the city is projected to be 300 acre-feet short of water, barring any interruptions to current and planned water supplies, said Joshua Haggmark, the city’s water resources manager, at Tuesday’s City Council meeting.

Water resources staff recommend making up the difference with a moratorium on watering lawns, which Haggmark said could go into effect as soon as this winter — in time for people get used to it before the trying months of next summer.

“No other measures have been identified with comparable savings potential,” he said.

The measure was received with great hesitancy from most of the City Council members, however, who primarily expressed concern over the increased enforcement needs.

In a worst-case scenario, the ban, which would have exceptions, would save 500 acre-feet a year, and in the best case, 1,200 acre-feet per year, Haggmark said. City staff’s goal, he added, is to also save an extra 500 acre-feet, as contingency, in addition to the 300 acre-foot number.

“It puts the city in the best possible position going into year six” of the drought, he said.

“If we get rainfall this winter and it improves our situation, we can revisit (a moratorium) any Tuesday to roll it back.”

Even as the Charles E. Meyer Desalination Plant is expected to start potable water production in January and supplementary water purchases and allocations continue to flow in, groundwater levels are near record lows, and Lake Cachuma, which supplies a significant amount of the South Coast’s water, is at 7.5-percent capacity, according to Haggmark.

In May 2015, the council declared a Stage 3 drought, and upped the city’s conservation target to 25 percent. Last April, the council increased that target to 35 percent.

In August, the city’s conservation rate hit 42 percent, compared to the water demand in 2013, Haggmark said. Since the Stage 3 drought was declared, Santa Barbara has saved an average of 36 percent.

“Given the track record we’ve seen from this community, I’m thinking we’re going to see closer to 1,000 (acre-feet savings) from them — which would be fantastic in allowing us more flexibility in dealing with the drought,” Haggmark told the council.

The residential, institutional and commercial sectors would each have their own exceptions to the proposed lawn-watering moratorium.

Residents whose lawns are irrigated by drip lines for trees and shrubs are fine, as are residents who irrigate certified “water wise” grasses that require less watering.

Though the city’s average conservation rate over the past 12 months is comparable to the goal targeted by the moratorium, Haggmark said, it masks the fact that summer conservation rates dip far below that average.

Simply asking residents to step up conservation efforts might not be enough to get the same water savings results a moratorium would, he said.

Staff also addressed another common proposal for saving water: restricting it for new developments in the city, which city planner Renee Brooke told the council wouldn’t be practical.

New developments in Santa Barbara have accounted for an average of 27 acre-feet per year over the past 10 years, she said. The city's demand in a normal year was about 14,600 acre-feet, and the new target demand is 9,500 acre-feet per year for water use.

In addition to providing too little savings, she said, such a restriction could have significant economic impacts on the community.

Given the city’s delicate water situation, however, the city needs to save as much water as it can, Councilman Bendy White insisted.

“Our margins of error are gone,” he said.

Councilwoman Cathy Murillo argued that such restrictions can stifle the development of much-needed affordable housing in the city.

Though Santa Barbarans’ conservation efforts are regularly lauded by city officials, the lower water use means less revenue for the city.

Water resources staff floated the idea of adopting a drought impact fee that would be assessed equally on all units of water consumed. The details of such a fee, Haggmark said, would have to be studied, and would be subject to public noticing and a public hearing.

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.